Two years ago during campus elections, 55.2 percent of student voters approved Measure 1: a proposal to build a recreation, wellness and events center on campus.

Since then, Associated Students Inc. has raised a number of questions about the project and the legality of campus president Alexander Gonzalez’s actions concerning the project’s planning, designing and funding.

At a May 3 ASI meeting, the ASI Board of Directors unanimously voted to hire legal counsel to investigate the issue.

The original referendum for the project – written by the University Union Board of Directors – asked whether the university should move forward with the construction of a recreation, wellness, event center, totaling 236,000 square feet.

A proposal, written by ASI Graduate Director John Kincaid, requested for clarification on whether it is legal for Gonzalez to use $9 million of the $25 million to build a new field house since the new field house, named the Broad Athletic Facility, was not a part of the referendum language.

Furthermore, the proposal seeks to answer two questions regarding student fees: whether the $10 fee raise in 2004 was appropriately used for the planning and design cost of the massive project and if it is legal for the university to implement the $110 increase, now that Gonzalez has raised the $25 million he promised to fundraise for the project. These fee increases were included in the referendum language.

The project – formerly known as the RWEC – was planned to be an all-in-one facility. But as plans progressed, Gonzalez said it proved to be too massive.

“We hired the architect and started drawing plans,” Gonzalez said at a meeting with The State Hornet at the end of May. “What we were given was that the footprint for that kind of building would be much, much too large without impinging on the practice track,”

He said the track is important for major events like the Olympic Trials, which Sac State has hosted twice – once in 2000 and again in 2004.

Thus, the project – renamed the Spanos Sports and Recreation Complex project with an estimated cost of more than $170 million – was broken into various phases: the destruction of the field house; the construction of the Broad Athletic Facility, a recreation and wellness center and a privately funded arena; and Hornet Stadium renovations.

Additionally, the idea of an events center within the recreation and wellness center became unclear, and the possibility of removing it from that facility arose.

As a result, students became concerned with the changes the project was undergoing, ASI executives said.

In an ASI meeting in April, Kincaid said the project was turning into something much different than what was voted on.

ASI President Angela Arriola said then, a group of students – including Kincaid – followed how Gonzalez was going about the project and that some students said he shouldn’t use $9 million for the athletic facility because it wasn’t mentioned in the referendum. She added that these students said the money should go toward the overall project.

Gonzalez said he saw the construction of the athletic facility as “just another phase of the project” and that ASI’s move to hire a lawyer seems to be political.

“I think it’d be more political than anything else,” Gonzalez said. “The real issue, to me, is: Are we going to build a rec. center for students or not? You want to politicize it, that’s fine.”

He told the Hornet that ASI can do what they want.

“They want to get the attorney, fine,” Gonzalez said. I don’t think there’s anything to hide.”

But Arriola assures it is not a political move.

“A valid question has been raised by students,” Arriola said. “And ASI is responsible to answer that question. We’re simply looking into it.”

She said ASI’s lawyer, Larry Garcia from the Diepenerock and Harrison Law Firm, is looking into whether Gonzalez can rightfully use the $9 million for the athletic facility and whether student fees for the project are being allocated correctly.

The cost for Garcia’s services is paid for through ASI’s budget.

ASI Executive Director Pat Worley said ASI sets money aside annually in case legal counsel is needed.

If there is no wrongdoing, administration will move forward with the project, Arriola said.

In a public statement published as an ad in The State Hornet, Gonzalez said he already went to the university’s lawyers to look into the athletic facility funding issue.

“I have consulted the University’s legal counsel on the funding issue raised by Associated Students and counsel has determined that the Broad Athletic Facility is a necessary part of the overall complex,” Gonzalez stated.

He said the university does not see any reason why it shouldn’t move forward with the project. Gonzalez added that ASI’s move could delay the project.

Arriola said ASI does not intend to postpone the project.

“Our interest is that we’re paying for it. That’s where we came in.” Gonzalez said the real issue surrounding the project is communication, and Arriola agrees.

“There’s been a lot of misinformation and miscommunication,” Arriola said. “And ASI is partly responsible for it.”

“We’re not putting ASI against administration,” Arriola said. “Our best move is to stay updated. ASI has a responsibility to stay informed.”

ASI had no board member on the committee overseeing the project during the 2005-06 school year, she said.

“We lost touch somewhere down the line last year,” she said. “We made that mistake.”

In order to prevent the same mistake, Arriola said, an ASI representative, Mimi Beas, has been appointed to sit on that committee as a nonvoting member and report updates to the ASI Board of Directors.

Nika Megino can be reached at [email protected].